Top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has told people she is unsure how her emails could have ended up on a device she viewed as her husband’s computer, the seizure of which has reignited the Clinton email investigation, according to a person familiar with the investigation and civil litigation over the matter.

The person, who would not discuss the case unless granted anonymity, said Abedin was not a regular user of the computer, and even when she agreed to turn over emails to the State Department for federal records purposes, her lawyers did not search it for materials, not believing any of her messages to be there.

That could be a significant oversight if Abedin’s work messages were indeed on the computer of her estranged husband, former congressman Anthony Weiner, who is under investigation for allegedly exchanging lewd messages with a 15-year-old girl. So far, it is unclear what — if any — new, work-related messages were found by authorities. The person said the FBI had not contacted Abedin about its latest discovery, and she was unsure what the bureau had discovered.

According to federal law enforcement officials, investigators found thousands of messages on Weiner’s computer that they believe to be potentially relevant to the separate, Clinton email investigation. How they are relevant — or if they are significant in any respect — remains unknown.

On Friday afternoon Yahoo News reported that Abedin stated when she was interviewed by an FBI agent last April that she had used four different devices and accounts to email Clinton, and that one of the devices was the one now at issue. That report appears to be incorrect.

Q Okay. And what devices did you return for your attorneys to look through with respect to federal records you may have had in your possession to be returned to the State Department?

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Beyond the scope.

A My — if my memory serves me correctly, it was two laptops, a BlackBerry, and some files that I found in my apartment.

Apparently neither of those laptops was Weiner’s and therefore the device now at issue.

Also in the transcript of that FBI interview, Abedin told the FBI agent, in answer to a question about whether she deleted her emails from Clinton, that she never deletes emails from anyone, and that she presumed that all her emails dating back many years were still in existence.

Two news reports make it clear that as of late yesterday, the FBI did not yet have the prerequisite court order to read those emails, which appear on a computer taken under a search warrant in an unrelated case concerning an unrelated subject—thus the need for a separate search warrant authorizing access to and review of those emails.

As of Saturday night, the FBI was still in talks with the Justice Department about obtaining a warrant that would allow agency officials to read any of the newly discovered Abedin emails, and therefore was still in the dark about whether they include any classified material that the bureau has not already seen.

“We do not have a warrant,” a senior law enforcement official said. “Discussions are under way [between the FBI and the Justice Department] as to the best way to move forward.”

That Comey and other senior FBI officials were not aware of what was in the emails — and whether they contained any material the FBI had not already obtained — is important because Donald Trump’s campaign and Republicans in Congress have suggested that the FBI director would not have written his letter unless he had been made aware of significant new emails that might justify reopening the investigation into the Clinton server.

Justice Department officials were particularly puzzled about why Mr. Comey had alerted Congress — and by extension, the public — before agents even began reading the newly discovered emails to determine whether they contained classified information or added new facts to the case.

Law enforcement officials have begun the process to get court authority to read the emails, officials said. How soon they will get that is unclear, but there is no chance that the review will be completed before Election Day, several law enforcement officials said. Many of the emails are most likely copies of messages that the F.B.I. has already read, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

But Comey himself answered that when he admitted that his motives were political—he wanted the public to know, before election day and as soon before that as possible in states where voting already was underway, that Huma Abedin had provided her husband access to thousands of her email correspondence with Clinton by providing access to them on a computer that Weiner used. In other words, he wanted the public to know, before they voted, that Donald Trump’s allegation that Anthony Weiner had access to State Department-related emails turns out to be true.

Or, apparently more accurately, the FBI agents who told him they had found those emails on Weiner’s computer wanted the public to know this, badly enough to threaten to leak the information before the election if Comey himself did not make it public.

So there are three steps that Huma Abedin should take, immediately. First, she should have her lawyers file an emergency court petition tomorrow requesting the immediate sealing and impoundment of Weiner’s laptop and of all other electronic devices taken through the search warrant concerning Weiner’s online sexual activities.

The petition also should request that she be allowed to have Weiner’s computer examined by an independent, non-government computer forensics experts, in the company of FBI computer forensics experts who are from an office far, far away from NYC and Washington, DC, and who have never worked at either of those offices.

And the petition should request disclosure to her of the identities of the FBI agents who, by Comey’s apparent acknowledgement, threatened him with leaks of what they claim are on Weiner’s computer.

Second, she or her lawyers should file a formal complaint with the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General, requesting investigation into who was threatening Comey with leaks and damage to Comey’s reputation if Comey himself did not make public the existence of State Department-related emails on Weiner’s computer.

The complaint also should request inquiry into Comey’s decision to make public raw information gained by dint of the FBI’s police powers and the Justice Department’s prosecutorial powers, for what he himself has stated was for the purpose of affecting votes for national elective office.

Third, she should ask that her lawyers, immediately after those are filed, hold a press conference detailing what is in the emergency petition and the complaint to the Inspector General’s Office.

Also immensely important: that the fact that that information did end up on Weiner’s personal computer—one that given what he did use it for, was not one that he likely would have invited Abedin to use—has not an iota to do with the facts that Clinton used a private email account and a private server. Presumably, all sorts of other high-level government employees, some in sensitive positions, probably access their government email accounts from home and also probably do work from home.

And then, of course, there is this: the fact that the FBI has, since late Friday or early yesterday, pushed the claim that Abedin herself had provided that computer to the FBI last spring—after Comey said that Abedin had NOT produced it during the investigation of the email matter, and that that is why he felt compelled to “update” the public–er, the Congress–does speak quite loudly, doesn’t it?

In any event, I will say this: Trump may well prove right after all in his claim that this is bigger than Watergate.

Comments (28)

One thing. Just because the emails were on Weiner’s laptop does not mean that Weiner had access to them.

Was he the admin of the PC and could access Huma’s password to get on the system?

Was he the admin of Huma’s email account and could get access to her emails?

I know nothing of Weiner’s background in computer science, but I doubt he is an accomplished hacker as it appears that he has no idea how technology works these days.

Beverly Mann

October 30, 2016 11:12 am

Excellent points, EMichael. Presumably, he was the administrator of his own computer, but also presumably he had no access into Abedin’s email accounts. But for that reason–that he probably did not have any more access to her email account than anyone else other than Abedin did–I’ve assumed that these emails are on the computer hard drive itself.

And, talk about bizarre: I just inserted a paragraph near the end of this post, saying:

“And then, of course, there is this: the fact that the FBI has, since late Friday or early yesterday, pushed the claim that Abedin herself had provided that computer to the FBI last spring—after Comey said that Abedin had NOT produced it during the investigation of the email matter, and that that is why he felt compelled to “update” the public–er, the Congress–does speak quite loudly, doesn’t it?”

EMichael

October 30, 2016 12:30 pm

Bev,

Who is right? Did the Abedin provide this computer to the FBI or did she not?

Meanwhile, one thing is certain.

The incredible amount of unanswered questions that have popped up since Comey wrote this letter is clear proof he should not have written this letter.

Beverly Mann

October 30, 2016 12:58 pm

According the new Washington Post report, Amedin has told friends (presumably including Clinton and top campaign people) that she did NOT turn over that computer, because she did not USE that computer–and that she does not know how those emails got onto that computer.

Pure, simple, straightforward. If the report is correct, she is telling people that she did not turn over the computer and did not use the computer. Period.

bronco

October 30, 2016 12:40 pm

Huma saying she didn’t give Anthony Weiner these emails is proof the FBI planted them?
What happened to the old standby excuse “PUTIN DID IT “?

Beverly Mann

October 30, 2016 1:05 pm

Truth be told, bronco, that was exactly my first presumption when I read the Post report. But would Putin know that the FBI had confiscated Weiner’s computer, or was about to confiscate it, under a search warrant in his underage-sexting scandal?

I doubt it, which is why I presumed that that is not what happened. But it is possible, I guess, that Putin got into Weiner’s computer in order to try to find underage porn or some such, and decided to put other State Dept. emails on that computer. If so, how would his people have gotten those emails?

bkrasting

October 30, 2016 12:41 pm

Wow! Bev – you’ve taken things to a whole new level with this one. You have, very publicly, accused the NY FBI of Felony conduct. If you are right people will go to jail. But if you are wrong you will have some explaining to do. (Did you make these dramatic accusations based on a comment by BillB? Do you even know who BillB is?)

You can be quite certain that having made these over the top claims of extortion at the highest levels of the FBI/Justice Department you are now under surveillance. Be guided accordingly.

You should also consider the possibility that there is no conspiracy at work. I provided you the link to the Newsweek article that said Comey had to do what he did. You flat out called Newsweek a liar.

Now you have to call Huffpost a liar as they have more info on this. They have quotes. Can you say that ex Fed prosecutor Wisenberg is lying?? He’s part of conspiracy, along with Newsweek??

“Solomon Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor who served as deputy independent counsel in the investigation of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, argues that Comey made a mistake in July when, in an announcement that the DOJ was not pressing charges, he criticized Clinton’s behavior and subsequently testified that he would re-open the investigation if new information warranted it. In so doing, Comey obligated himself to keep Congress up to date, argued Wisenberg.”

“He told them if things change, he would report to them. Given that set of facts, he was duty-bound to do it,” he said.

Clearly, Weisenberg is wrong. Comey had no authority to make that promise, and the fact that he did so did not give him the authority to rewrite Justice Dept. policy and protocol, nor to ignore it.

Much less did he have the authority to misuse the FBI’s and the Justice Dept.’s investigative authority, which is derived, as Gorelick and Thompson say in their op-ed today in the Washington Post, from the Justice Dept.’s prosecutorial authority.

The claim that Comey did have this authority strikes me as bizarre. He did not. And if he violated the law–and I believe he may well have–he sure as hell can’t use as a defense that he understood his promise to Congress as a promise to violate the law.

This line of defense of Comey is just nutty.

Beverly Mann

October 30, 2016 1:30 pm

Oh … and, you betcha I have, very publicly, raised the possibility that the NY FBI—the agents who are conducting the Weiner investigation, or at least I presume that—planted that stuff on that computer, obviously a felony.

But I’m basing it on the report that Amedin says she did not, contrary to initial reports, turn over that computer during the email investigation, and that she did not do so because she did not use that computer and did not consider it hers, and that she does not know how those emails got onto that computer. And on the fact that (presumably) it is NYC agents who are investigating the Weiner case, from the NYC end of the investigation.

But, no, I did not accuse Newsweek or the two reporters of lying. I accused them of gullibility and of not verifying before publication that “the truth” is under the law Comey had no choice. I said, including in the title of that post, that Newsweek needs to retract it—correct the article—not say it or its reporters knew it was false.

Look. It should not be hard to determine forensically when and how those emails got onto Weiner’s computer. But first it has to be accepted that the FBI agents’ word that they were on that computer when they gained custody of it should not be simply accepted without investigation, in light of Abedin’s apparent claim that she did not use that computer and does not know how those emails got onto it.

JackD

October 30, 2016 12:46 pm

Bev, from what you have posted it’s not really clear to me that the initial Yahoo report was wrong. I remain profoundly suspicious of Comey’s motives other than it remains likely that he is basically covering his own ass. I await further information.

Beverly Mann

October 30, 2016 12:54 pm

Jack, it’s absolutely is clear that that earlier Yahoo News report and today’s Washington Post report are mutually exclusive. The Yahoo report said that the computer at issue–the one taken recently under the Weiner-sex-scandal search warrant, which is Weiner’s personal computer–is what turned up the emails. That these emails were ON that computer.

The Post report says that Amedin told friends, and undoubtedly Clinton and top campaign people, that she did not turn over that computer during the email investigation because she does not use that computer–it is Weiner’s personal computer–and that she does not know how the emails ended up on that computer.

EMichael

October 30, 2016 12:47 pm

BK,

SO Comey screwed up by violating procedures in July, and then makes his other violations OK?

You cannot argue that he is “keeping Congress up to date” when he has absolutely no idea if this information is relevant to Clinton’s actions.

And in terms of the FBI tampering allegation, it has the same validity as Comey’s allegation that he is “keeping Congress up to date”.

JackD

October 30, 2016 2:12 pm

Bev, I agree that the reports are in conflict but just because Abedin says she didn’t use the computer doesn’t mean the emails aren’t on it. As you indicate above, perhaps the real question is how did they get there? The situation is fuzzy enough that I await clarification; if it ever comes, that is.

BillB

October 30, 2016 3:07 pm

Department policy requires that any warrants, subpoenas or announcements in the weeks proceeding an election be reviewed by the Justice Department Public Integrity Division to preclude the perception of bias in a democratic election.

The entire point of this policy is to preclude the perception of bias by having an independent review. Comey defied department policy by refusing the required review. He took it upon himself to make the decision which is why he is being accused of bias. He has gone rogue, breaking the rules, exercising dictatorial power. This is has done irreparable harm to the reputation of the FBI. He should resign immediately after the election.

bkrasting

October 30, 2016 4:06 pm

Bev says “Clearly, Weisenberg is wrong.”

So now the form Federal Prosecutor is part of the conspiracy and is lying??

Bev you should think a second or two before you write stuff.

Meanwhile there is 650,000 emails on the Weiner computer. Thousands of those are from HRC’s private service.

The folks that are have been shouting that Comey should have hid this information are going to look silly as these facts are correct.

“So now the form Federal Prosecutor is part of the conspiracy and is lying??”

Wow. Why do you conflate “wrong” with “lying”?

As for the fact that thousands–actually, reports say it’s about 1,000–emails are on Weiner’s computer are not disputed at this point. The issue is how they got there.

bronco

October 30, 2016 4:07 pm

The justice department public integrity division? If such a thing existed it would have prevented Loretta Lynch from meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac that fateful day. If the meeting couldn’t be prevented they would have demanded her resignation after the fact.

Also whats all this rubbish about the FBI’s credibility? That ship sailed a long time ago.

I’ve seen comparisons in the last two days to Hoover and to Patrick Gray during Watergate.

About the Public Integrity Unit, it’s the part of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division that investigates and prosecutes allegations of public corruption–actual violations of criminal law. It plays no role in establishing ethics rules.

EMichael

October 30, 2016 4:53 pm

BK,

You have no idea whether thousands of those e mails are from Hillary’s private server.

If the FBI does not know, then the WSJ does not know.

EMichael

October 30, 2016 4:57 pm

BK,

BTW, whatever credibility you might have had before in here is now gone.

When the fen WSJ says “may” you say “are”.

Really, really sad.

EMichael

October 30, 2016 5:07 pm

You never know(especially with the CDS infecting millions), but there is a really serious problem with this whole thing that makes no sense.

FBI agents found these emails a couple of weeks ago. To this point they still have not obtained a search warrant, something that can be done in hours.

Why would that be? They could have gotten a search warrant and gone through these emails weeks ago.

Now, Comey says they will look at them, but there is still no warrant. That is beyond fishy and points to just a politically motivated stunt.

bkrasting

October 30, 2016 6:10 pm

Emike – You say: “You have no idea whether thousands of those e mails are from Hillary’s private server.

If the FBI does not know, then the WSJ does not know.”

Ah.. did you read the report?? I guess not, A cut and paste for you:

As federal agents prepare to scour roughly 650,000 emails to see how many relate to a prior probe of Hillary Clinton’s email use, the surprise disclosure that investigators were pursuing the potential new evidence lays bare building tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the Democratic presidential nominee.

Metadata found on the laptop used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, suggests there may be thousands of emails sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.

bkrasting

October 30, 2016 6:49 pm

Bev – at 4:57 you said: “As for the fact that thousands–actually, reports say it’s about 1,000–emails are on Weiner’s computer”

Ok, according to Bev it is a FACT that there are only 1,000 emails.

Actually Bev, at 3:22, an hour and half before you made this comment, the WSJ came out with the news alert that there were 650,000 emails on the computer, and thousands of those emails were from/to HRC’s private server.

The information you suggested was a “fact” was off by a mile. The proof of that was public info before you wrote it. Face it – you don’t own the truth in this story.

I kinda like that one about the WSJ report, quoting it as saying “”Many of the emails were discovered on a laptop used by both Ms. Abedin and Mr. Weiner, according to people familiar with the matter. In searching the laptop, investigators found thousands of emails, and they determined earlier this week that some of the emails involved Ms. Abedin discussing work issues.”

So according to the WSJ, the FBI has been freely reading those emails, even though they didn’t get a search warrant to do that until about an hour ago.

The article itself is hilarious, as its title suggests it is. Seriously; read it.

Thomas

October 30, 2016 8:28 pm

I’m pleased to find someone else who has connected the same dots that I have.
I have more dots. Earlier this year, wikileaks published emails that were touted as being the emails from Clinton’s private server. Those emails were in the possession of the FBI investigative team that was investigating the emails: the same team that has now “found” Clinton’s emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer.

EMichael

October 31, 2016 11:08 am

BK,

“suggests there may be thousands of emails sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state”

Which part of “suggests” and “may” do you have trouble understanding?

You seem to be reading that as, “knows there are thousands of emails sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state”, as opposed to what it actually says.

bkrasting

October 31, 2016 12:46 pm

Ok Emike I give up. Now you are giving me a lecture on language.

I keep saying that no one, especially you and I, don’t really know what is the scope of this. My view of this:

1) Comey did not take this amazing/dramtic step unless he had something to base his decision to go public.

2) Comey discussed this with DOJ lawyers. He discussed this with FBI lawyers. There were dozens of lawyers involved with Comey’s Friday letter. We know that many of those lawyers said he should not reveal anything before the election. BUT he did it anyway.

I have looked/read praise of Comey by everyone over the past few years. He is not a fool. He is not a political hack. He does not want to ruin his reputation. The idea that Comey is using his office to support Trump is just not believable to me.

That is my thinking only, you are free to disagree. My view of the facts forces me to conclude that Comey has awareness that that there is damaging information on the Weiner computer. I don’t think Comey would have done this without reason.

What would you consider to be damaging?

A) large volumes of emails between Huma and HRC. (more than 10,000)

B) The emails did use the HRC private server.

C) Some of the emails contain classified information.

D) Some of the emails have not previously been viewed by the FBI.

We shall see where this goes. It will take till Christmas to get the facts. But if my A-D come to pass than HRC may not be the next Prez.

I could be completely wrong. There might be nothing of significance on the computer. If so, you can say goodbye to Comely. He will be disgraced for life. You can also say “I told you so BK”. We shall see if there is any fire attached to this smoke.

William Ryan

October 31, 2016 3:07 pm

For those who like to live a life of lies and distortion and live in a fake and false economy, the more accurate and real story of the truth is being told today at WallStreetonParade.com by Pam Martens as usual. It is a real trick for HRC and a real treat for DJT and be sure to listen to the radio interview of James Kallstrom…